I have a problem

[LS 4722]

Two single family subdivisions were done in 1920 and 1922. The two divisions are comprised of 84 individual lots with a 60 foot wide future street extension at the mid point of the 1922 division. Monuments were set at the center of this future street. The 1920 division also placed monuments where the future street would tie in.

In March of 1930 the city survey crew goes out and recovers the original monuments and sets ties at one specific intersection. I will call this tie book March 30. In June of 1930 the city again visits the area, finds additional original pipe, decides a final city centerline and ties out the same intersection and two additional ones. I will call this tie book June 30.

Tie Book June 30 has a note on it that says " Ties for final centerline for Oak Street".

Tie book March 30 has two notes on it. The first one says "See Tie Book June 30 for new ties". This note is most likely circa 1930. The second note is dated 10/25/2010 by a city party chief who had reset some PK straddlers and had crossed out the original swing tie values with his own creations.

From June of 1930 until October of 2010 this certain intersection had remained pristine. Properties were surveyed, walls were built, houses constructed.

In 2003 a local surveyor uses June 30 intersection and files an RS. In April of 2004 another surveyor uses the same intersection and files a CR. In June of 2008 I use this same intersection and I file a CR as well.

Last week I was called upon to survey the NE corner lot of this intersection. I pull city ties off the web and there is a new tie listed for this intersection dated October 2010 on one of the city cad field book pages.

However, there is a problem.

The October 2010 party chief had decided, on his own, without supervision, to "FIX" the errors made in June of 1930. He shifted this intersection 0.47' south. Where the 1930 work had showed an 11 minute angle point from one intersection to another, we now have a nice clean 180° line.

I contacted the president of the local PPC last week when I discovered this and he in turn contacted the survey supervisor of the city, who said, "We are in the process of correcting the errors that were made way back when". It appeared that the supervisor was going to take a look at it and get that 2010 position set back to the June 1930 position that has been used for over 80 years.

Today, I get a call from the supervisor who said he spoke to the party chief and asked why the intersection was moved 0.47' south (Like I said "No supervision". If the chief was supervised under this LS supervisor, then he would have been familiar with this intersection". Anyway, he told me "They are correcting the errors made in 1930.

I was pissed. He hung up on me. I contacted the PPC immediately after my conversation with this LS supervisor.

The ONLY way one can correct a bad intersection is if one has verified original monuments to go from, and those puppies have been gone for many decades.

This is the first letter I am writing about this. I told the supervisor that I was going to write a letter over this travesty to the City Engineer. I changed my mind on that, I am addressing it to the Director of Public Works and I may carbon it to the Mayor of the city.

I think I am done for now.


Edit: I am holding off of writing more letters and naturally, filing a CR detailing this whole ugly mess. I will give the PPC pres. a chance to talk some sense into the LS Supervisor. I would rather this work out peaceably and I really don't want to write any letters, but if you push me to hard, I will push back a lot harder.

[mpallamary]

Well............ I have found that filing a complaint with the Grand Jury is a great place to go especially, after I make multiple requests seeking clarification. If you want to read some related stories, check out my book "Lay of the Land." If finances are a problem I will mail it to you as a gift.
http://www.amazon.com/Lay-Land-History- ... 1410702847

[LS 4722]

Thanks for the offer of the book. I don't think we are at Grand Jury stage yet..

I'll just wait on PPC to do their thing. Maybe someone can talk some sense into this supervisor. What's scary is that this has been on going for 3 1/2 years (or more!) that I know of.

I wonder what other "fixes of errors" have been done....scary thought!

[RAM]

I didn't digest the whole thing, but sounds like "material discrepancy" therefore shouldn't it be a R/S.

[David Kendall]

How does the shift of the intersection impact the surrounding property? That 0.47' sounds to me like alot and it may create new encroachments or other conflicts. If this "correction" causes problems for citizens it will hopefully be addressed soon. Otherwise, you might consider just letting the city play around in the street and forget about it, even though the practice seems annoying and wasteful. Unfortunately, it may create a messy map filing for you!

[LS 4722]

I didn't digest the whole thing, but sounds like "material discrepancy" therefore shouldn't it be a R/S.

Material discrepancy does not apply at all. This is simply an unlicensed and unsupervised technician deciding that a straight line and a 180° angle in 2010 is a lot better than what has been used for 80 years.

Now, alternate position does come into play. If anyone is filing an RS it will be the city. I will file a CR, showing rejection of the 2010 position and explaining the whole mess. I was told by this supervisor that the 'crew' uncovered some 'original evidence' to justify the shift, however, none of that 'evidence' appears on any city tie notes.

Even if original pipes were discovered to show an alternate location they would have to yield to the position used for 80 years.

David..

How does the shift of the intersection impact the surrounding property?

You answered your own question when you said

That 0.47' sounds to me like a lot and it may create new encroachments or other conflicts. If this "correction" causes problems for citizens it will hopefully be addressed soon.

I wont leave the city alone on this. This happened before in this city when the former survey supervisor decided to run a lot of areas in star net. Star net spit out some stuff and a 90 year old position was shifted 8 inches. I wrote a letter to the City Engineer on that one (the letter was actually suggested by the City Engineer) and the end of that story is that two intersections appear on one tie page. The former supervisor said that the private surveyors can 'choose the intersection they want to use'.

[7702]

Sounds like a discrepancy to me, and seemingly "material" as well. But then, I tend to error on the conservative side cause Ric has me scared straight! : )

[land butcher]

Lovely. I would include the City Attorney in my CCs.

Govt agencies scare me. I'm guessing at the dates and actual lot sizes as I was involved in this before I was licensed.
An area in Orange County, still unincorporated, was surveyed and lot corners set in the late 1940s, blocks of 660 x 330. Approx 1970 it was discovered that the original surveyors had set the lot corners from the south to north and put all the error in the last lot, over a foot. The County sent out a crew and verified this by locating fences showing occupation for 30+ years. At that time it was decided to "follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor". Good call.

This area the old small houses are being replaced by 4 plexes. Now in 1978 we are doing a lot near the middle of the block. We base our field work and design on "following in the footsteps of the original surveyor". The now CS says NO you have to prorate the lots. End result is one of the adjoiners lost ~6 inches of his narrow dwy (it was already a 4plex) and the other old wood fence was left in place and a new wall built ~6 in away. JFL.

Then there is the project in Signal Hill where LA ignored their old ties and reset a CL int over .3ft from where the ties put it. AUGGHH.

[Stephen Johnson]

Lovely. I would include the City Attorney in my CCs.

Govt agencies scare me. I'm guessing at the dates and actual lot sizes as I was involved in this before I was licensed.
An area in Orange County, still unincorporated, was surveyed and lot corners set in the late 1940s, blocks of 660 x 330. Approx 1970 it was discovered that the original surveyors had set the lot corners from the south to north and put all the error in the last lot, over a foot. The County sent out a crew and verified this by locating fences showing occupation for 30+ years. At that time it was decided to "follow in the footsteps of the original surveyor". Good call.

This area the old small houses are being replaced by 4 plexes. Now in 1978 we are doing a lot near the middle of the block. We base our field work and design on "following in the footsteps of the original surveyor". The now CS says NO you have to prorate the lots. End result is one of the adjoiners lost ~6 inches of his narrow dwy (it was already a 4plex) and the other old wood fence was left in place and a new wall built ~6 in away. JFL.

Then there is the project in Signal Hill where LA ignored their old ties and reset a CL int over .3ft from where the ties put it. AUGGHH.

No. 1, It is NOT the CS's Call on proration.
No. 2. He/she/it was WRONG.
NO.3. There should have been a complaint filed with the board on the CS's actions.

[land butcher]

Wasn't my position to make any determinations. I know the CE was really PO'd.

[LS_8750]

Surveyor semantics. The best of the best can go on and on ad infinitum. For what?

The best surveyors are only amateur philosophers.

I can't say that lawyers are as good at philosophy as surveyors. Surveyors live it, while lawyers .... Request napkins.